I like that lets blow the roof off this bitch

Mongo wrote:I like that lets blow the roof off this bitch

Sweet....I knew this was going to happen. B Man?? We're back in the thread here!!





Just trying to keep it fun.

Did you see Tiger woods change his name to Cheetah...

My Neighbors............. The lesbians next door asked me what I would like for my birthday. I was quite surprised when they gave me a Rolex It was very nice of them, but I think they misunderstood me when I said, "I wanna watch."

Aaaahhh yeah the thread, I have decided on an early 60s 180, hopefully with a PPonk engine, unfortunately not for a year.

Mongo wrote:Did you see Tiger woods change his name to Cheetah...

My Neighbors............. The lesbians next door asked me what I would like for my birthday. I was quite surprised when they gave me a Rolex It was very nice of them, but I think they misunderstood me when I said, "I wanna watch."

Aaaahhh yeah the thread, I have decided on an early 60s 180, hopefully with a PPonk engine, unfortunately not for a year.

Ok, now that we have that settled, can I have your 7GCBC when you are done with it? Oh, also when I am picking your old plane up, will you introduce me to your neighbors? Thanks. Steve

We have a 75 180J (same fuse as the 185) which we've owned since new. It has been a fantastic aeroplane, I learnt in it and have flown nothing else. However It has always been a struggle when fully loaded esp if you inadvertantly add more than legal or have the 3190lb upgrade. The only structural problem we have ever had was cracked gear box's. Nearly all flying off grass strips with some not so smooth. It was tipped on its back last year so we bit the bullet and put in the TS O-520 (with the 8:5-1 Cylinders) and an MT 3 blade prop. It is a completely different aeroplane esp when loaded. I have flown the odd 185 but not loaded and can now appreciate the diference HP makes. There is no substitute. If you intend to operate with loads off shorter strips or at higher elevations go for the 185 or upgraded 180. You will not regret it. Despite what people say about fuel burn your MPG will not be too much different. I know lots of people like the feel of the earlier models but if you want it fly it loaded go for structure and HP. You might say that most of the time you are tooling around with just you or one other but the times when you do want to load it to the hilt and head off into the never never's you will then appreciate it all the more.

Jamie G

Now you guys have done it, made me register after lurking and evesdropping on this site for the last year or 2, and I think it's a great site. Couldn't pass up a reply on 180/185s. Owned 1 and flew 3 different early model 180s back in the late sixties and early seventies. Loved the early 180s light, good handling and off the runway in a flash. Lost my 1954 cherry 180 in a windstorm at Jeffco in 1975. Couldn't get into the old Breckenridge, CO airport where I was based due to snow storm and left it at Jeffco. Along came the 100 plus wind that can happen there and 180 broke 1 chain and then broke the tie down out of the other wing. It flipped over on it's back and broke the plane in pieces. I had lot's of tears when I walked up to it.
I started looking at 180/185s to replace it and don't have enough room to tell you about all the B.S. I looked at. Even priced out a new 1976 180 from Roach Aircraft at Jeffco. It priced out at around $26,500. I thought at that time if I'm going to have to pay that kind of money I might as well get a 185, faster and more load. Went and looked at a lot of 185s used and found a bunch of junk. Saw the one I bought, a 1971 in TAP down in Griffin, GA. talked to the Eastern Captain that maintained it and the owner, a Delta pilot. I told the wife it sounds like a keeper and we jumped on the big iron to Atlanta. Drove down to Griffin and saw it parked on the guys grass strip out front of his big, big house, those guys sure did good in those days. Had a 1000 hours on it in 5 years and he was the second owner. We went up and flew it around and I said lets land get the deal done ASAP. Headed home the next day and made it only to Jonesboro, AR. in a heavy rainstorm. After a trying morning and leaving Jonesboro twice, a starter out and a terrible time at the shop with me telling them what to do to repair the bird we made it home. That was in June of 1976 and we've still got the 185 33 years later. Best all around plane I've ever owned, also had several 170s back in the sixties. I've got around 3,000 hours in it and had it in Alaska and Canada and Mexico many, many times. Had 2 forcrd landings in it during that time, both problems with the induction system. 1988 near Cabo in Baja, landed on rocky beach and 1990 south of Helena, MT. landed on I-15. Those are another story but too long for this post. Done lots of mods to the 185 over the years. I say get whatever turns your crank, a 185 for me.

Keep the pointy end forward and the dirty side down, Ron

Welcome aboard, Ron. Sounds like you have some interesting stories to tell.

Welcome Ron!
I was a ski tech at Blue River Sports in Breck in '98-'99, best winter of my life, I sure miss that place. Look forward to hearing some stories,
Wirsig.

This will be my first post......and I will have to echo what gbflyer and MTV had to say.

I've owned a 55 model and I'm new to a '75 180. I've flown other late model and early model 180's and 185's with standard and hot rod engines. For the same reasons stated by the two posters above the utility and refinements of the later models far outweigh (no pun intended) the negatives. I really liked the performance of my early model but was really hampered by the lack of extended backage, fuel, panel, etc. After I sold the '55 I flew a friends '79 and was pleasantly surprised. What was supposed to be a heavy "truck' of a 180 was really a joy. The later model wing I think has something to do with this. Even though the plane was 300 lbs heavier than my early model, pretty quickly I didn't feel that takeoff or landing performance would narrow my runway selection at all. I've yet to think of a strip in which I would take a lighter 180 into but not a later model. Your milage may vary.

For me the 180 vs. 185 deal is really more a usefull load/density altitude deal. The 185 is obviously more to insure as well. That being said...these airplanes were real working airplanes and it might be the best idea to find the nicest, lowest time Skywagon thats closest to you and buy that.

Lastly, I've read and fully respect the opinion of the people that have posted before in reference to the 185 feeling "heavy" or trucklike. I respectfully disagree. The mid sixties and up 185's are real hotrods and I never noticed any real difference in control feel between a 180 and 185 of a similar year.

Great to be on the board.

WK

fiftynineSC wrote:This will be my first post......and I will have to echo what gbflyer and MTV had to say.

I've owned a 55 model and I'm new to a '75 180. I've flown other late model and early model 180's and 185's with standard and hot rod engines. For the same reasons stated by the two posters above the utility and refinements of the later models far outweigh (no pun intended) the negatives. I really liked the performance of my early model but was really hampered by the lack of extended backage, fuel, panel, etc. After I sold the '55 I flew a friends '79 and was pleasantly surprised. What was supposed to be a heavy "truck' of a 180 was really a joy. The later model wing I think has something to do with this. Even though the plane was 300 lbs heavier than my early model, pretty quickly I didn't feel that takeoff or landing performance would narrow my runway selection at all. I've yet to think of a strip in which I would take a lighter 180 into but not a later model. Your milage may vary.

For me the 180 vs. 185 deal is really more a usefull load/density altitude deal. The 185 is obviously more to insure as well. That being said...these airplanes were real working airplanes and it might be the best idea to find the nicest, lowest time Skywagon thats closest to you and buy that.

Lastly, I've read and fully respect the opinion of the people that have posted before in reference to the 185 feeling "heavy" or trucklike. I respectfully disagree. The mid sixties and up 185's are real hotrods and I never noticed any real difference in control feel between a 180 and 185 of a similar year.

Great to be on the board.

WK

Welcome

I've been looking for 2 years now, and I'm zeroing in to get one soon. For my needs it will be a 180. Looking at a 1958 and a 1959 model. Same engine, and similar in price and features. Is there really any difference? Joe Stancil's site mentions a redesigned instrument panel in 1959. Does that equate to a taller panel? I had a C170 and know nothing compares to the awesome over the nose visibility. So anyone know can you "see over" a 58 better than a 59??

Thanks!

Steve

cabinflyer wrote:I've been looking for 2 years now, and I'm zeroing in to get one soon. For my needs it will be a 180. Looking at a 1958 and a 1959 model. Same engine, and similar in price and features. Is there really any difference? Joe Stancil's site mentions a redesigned instrument panel in 1959. Does that equate to a taller panel? I had a C170 and know nothing compares to the awesome over the nose visibility. So anyone know can you "see over" a 58 better than a 59??

Thanks!

Steve

I could be wrong, but alot of people will "redesign" there panel in which they will move the instruments and radio's around. Alot of times this may mean that they will move the radios from the lower left side of the panel (original location in many early Cessna's) and then move the radio's, GPS to the center of the panel and move the instruments around to accomidate the now "Center Stack Radio's". That's my guess. Should have nothing to do with the hieght of the panel. Again, that's my guess.

cabinflyer wrote:Looking at a 1958 and a 1959 model. Same engine, and similar in price and features. Is there really any difference?

The stouter door hinges that came in '59 are nice to have. Mine also has the Luxe rear seat airliner-style air vents and reclining seats. Pretty minor differences.

No problem seeing over the panel for me. I'm 6' tall. Although I sit up extra straight on most landings, if you know what I mean.

You can't go wrong with any of these birds, in my opinion.

The '59 isn't a true center stack but two short stacks in the upper portion of the panel. I don't think there is a difference in the height or contour of the panel.

if it's anything like my '55 model, the centerstack issue is not from panel dimensions. The problem with building a true center stack panel is the yoke structure behind the panel. It's a "T" versus a "U". Avion used to have a behind the panel yoke column conversion for the earlier aiplanes and I've seen some 337's covering this mod. I think cesssna changed to a "U" shaped yoke column in about 1964.

WK

As this goes on I remember more stuff...

We had a '55 that the panel had been updated on. The guy we bought it from attended an A&P school in ID and they used it as a project. They gutted the entire panel and put in the U column and center stack with late - style yokes. He said it was a bitch of a job. The work was immaculate, the wiring alone was like something you'd see in a nuclear submarine, it was that nice. I cannot imagine what it would have cost in a shop.

The other mod that I consider important on the older ones is updated fuel caps, like Monarch. The originals have a well in the wing with a flush cover door. There are small drain holes that are often times plugged. They can be serious water catchers if you spend much time on the ramp in the rain.

Older ones have lighter gauge skin on the wings and a lot of flush rivets. Patches over cracks are common on the top. Loose and broken out flap hangers are also a fun one. Some of those 180 pilots never figured out what the white arc is all about, I guess.

gb

I also was wondering about the 180 or the 185. Originally I was looking at the Maule which I thought was my dream plane...until someone brought up the fact it has a fabric fuselage. I want to use it in the back country and I thought a fabric fuselage would be more susceptible to damage and thus leaving me stranded...also bears would find it easier to get in.

Is there anything wrong with my assumptions here?

Here are some posts on construction materials from an existing thread to consider:

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6863&p=88383&hilit=bear+duct+tape#p88383

They each have their advantages and disadvantages, in the end there are a lot of factors to consider when choosing a plane. Many others have posted on this forum about selecting a plane based upon the mission you intend to use it for. FWIW, I support that view, unless there are some other extraordinary circumstances.

Somewhere on this forum are photos of airplane victimized by a bear in AK. It was a fabric covered plane which was repaired with duct taped and flown out.

xcalibursword wrote:I thought a fabric fuselage would be more susceptible to damage and thus leaving me stranded...also bears would find it easier to get in.

The things you'd have to do to fabric to suffer damage bad enough to strand you... it's harder than you think. A small hole from a rock here and there... you can patch it to get home. The guys taking Super Cubs and the like into river bars covered in baby head size rocks... do you think you will out-do that with your Maule?

A bear could easily damage the structure of a Cessna fuselage beyond airworthiness if it tried to gain entry. Try fixing that with duct tape

I'd say the fabric is of less concern when landing in remote areas as long as you're not driving it into tree branches and snags. A much more likely culprit is ripping off a tailwheel when it drops into an unseen chuck hole, or suffering damage to one of the gear legs if you get out of shape on the ground.

We'd better leave the Skywagon thread to the Skywagon-specific discussion. Here's a thread with more on the topic of construction techniques: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6863